Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
07-31-15 02:06PM |
|
Phil_D
Drawmaster
Registered: May 2014
Location: Joliet, IL
Posts: 629 |
Beijing Wins 2022 Winter Olympics Bid
The choice was only between Almaty, Kazakhstan and Beijing. Vote was close.
Personally, I find this to be disappointing news for several reasons:
1. Shows just how out of control and insane the costs (monetary and otherwise) of hosting an Olympic Games have become. Several European Cities pulled their bids over the course of the bidding process, and unless I'm mistaken neither the United States or Canada even submitted any bids.
2. Three Olympic Games in a row in Eastern Asia. The Olympics are supposed to be much more global than that.
3. Apparently Beijing is even warmer with less annual snowfall then Sochi. This will affect the indoor events as well, especially curling. Only so much you can do to offset ambient heat and humidity when it comes to indoor ice.
Again, I know there's not much that can be done when nobody seems to want the event in the first place. I think it just goes to show that something (probably many things) needs to change with this whole process (bidding and hosting).
Thoughts?
__________________
Recreational curler & resident armchair curler at Windy City Curling Club.
Co-host of the NerdCurl podcast & occasional blogger.
http://www.nerdcurl.com
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-31-15 02:25PM |
|
guycan
Swing Artist
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Brampton, ON
Posts: 267 |
Re: Beijing Wins 2022 Winter Olympics Bid
quote: Originally posted by Phil_D
The choice was only between Almaty, Kazakhstan and Beijing. Vote was close.
Personally, I find this to be disappointing news for several reasons:
1. Shows just how out of control and insane the costs (monetary and otherwise) of hosting an Olympic Games have become. Several European Cities pulled their bids over the course of the bidding process, and unless I'm mistaken neither the United States or Canada even submitted any bids.
2. Three Olympic Games in a row in Eastern Asia. The Olympics are supposed to be much more global than that.
3. Apparently Beijing is even warmer with less annual snowfall then Sochi. This will affect the indoor events as well, especially curling. Only so much you can do to offset ambient heat and humidity when it comes to indoor ice.
Again, I know there's not much that can be done when nobody seems to want the event in the first place. I think it just goes to show that something (probably many things) needs to change with this whole process (bidding and hosting).
Thoughts?
It was a disappointing race for 2022 after the European cities withdrew because of various concerns (Lviv for political, and the rest were scared away by the costs of Sochi).
However, change is underway with Thomas Bach's Agenda 2020 reforms to make bidding and hosting the Olympics more viable in terms of cost and legacy to a host city. For example, hosting certain events such as bobsleigh/luge at a site that already has an established track rather than build your own if there is no future use for it. Also, the cost of bidding has been reduced and split into a payment plan.
So the lessons have been learned from this bid process, and are now in motion for 2024 and beyond as the IOC would like to keep the Games relevant and existent for the future.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-31-15 02:50PM |
|
Phil_D
Drawmaster
Registered: May 2014
Location: Joliet, IL
Posts: 629 |
Re: Re: Beijing Wins 2022 Winter Olympics Bid
quote: Originally posted by guycan
It was a disappointing race for 2022 after the European cities withdrew because of various concerns (Lviv for political, and the rest were scared away by the costs of Sochi).
However, change is underway with Thomas Bach's Agenda 2020 reforms to make bidding and hosting the Olympics more viable in terms of cost and legacy to a host city. For example, hosting certain events such as bobsleigh/luge at a site that already has an established track rather than build your own if there is no future use for it. Also, the cost of bidding has been reduced and split into a payment plan.
So the lessons have been learned from this bid process, and are now in motion for 2024 and beyond as the IOC would like to keep the Games relevant and existent for the future.
Good to know. I'll have to look into the Agenda 2020 stuff, thanks for the info!
__________________
Recreational curler & resident armchair curler at Windy City Curling Club.
Co-host of the NerdCurl podcast & occasional blogger.
http://www.nerdcurl.com
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-31-15 10:12PM |
|
SargentIV
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL (originally from Richmond, VA)
Posts: 85 |
1. It's worth noting (and the IOC has done a very poor job of communicating this) that the bulk of the 2008 Beijing and 2014 Sochi costs were due to the fact that such a huge amount of infrastructure (not just competition venues) had to be built from scratch. The actual operating cost of the Games (I believe this means from when the athletes first move into the Olympic Village until when the last ones leave) is $2 billion, far less than the several dozen billions Beijing and Sochi spent. Also, the IOC covers half the cost of the operating budget. The USOC opted not to bid for 2022 because they were still rebuilding relationships with the international sporting community and because they wanted to focus on 2024.
2. Three consecutive bids in a row going to East Asia has occurred for a few reasons. First, Pyeongchang won 2018 in part because it was their third bid and the IOC tends to reward persistence in the bidding process (a great hindrance to US cities who typically lose then cry "they hate us" and fail to bid again); second Tokyo 2020 was selected in 2013 when the IOC was dealing with Rio de Janeiro's growing preparations issues plus the increasing controversy surrounding Sochi and Tokyo seemed a very safe choice; third several cities dropped out of the 2022 race as previously mentioned, though the IOC did have the opportunity to go to a different part of Asia.
__________________
If you want to win a race run the 100m. If you want an experience run the marathon. - Emil Zatopek
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
08-01-15 01:36AM |
|
Phil_D
Drawmaster
Registered: May 2014
Location: Joliet, IL
Posts: 629 |
quote: Originally posted by SargentIV
1. It's worth noting (and the IOC has done a very poor job of communicating this) that the bulk of the 2008 Beijing and 2014 Sochi costs were due to the fact that such a huge amount of infrastructure (not just competition venues) had to be built from scratch. The actual operating cost of the Games (I believe this means from when the athletes first move into the Olympic Village until when the last ones leave) is $2 billion, far less than the several dozen billions Beijing and Sochi spent. Also, the IOC covers half the cost of the operating budget. The USOC opted not to bid for 2022 because they were still rebuilding relationships with the international sporting community and because they wanted to focus on 2024.
2. Three consecutive bids in a row going to East Asia has occurred for a few reasons. First, Pyeongchang won 2018 in part because it was their third bid and the IOC tends to reward persistence in the bidding process (a great hindrance to US cities who typically lose then cry "they hate us" and fail to bid again); second Tokyo 2020 was selected in 2013 when the IOC was dealing with Rio de Janeiro's growing preparations issues plus the increasing controversy surrounding Sochi and Tokyo seemed a very safe choice; third several cities dropped out of the 2022 race as previously mentioned, though the IOC did have the opportunity to go to a different part of Asia.
Good points.
I wasn't aware of all the ins and outs of financing and costs, other than that recent games have been expensive (to say the least).
I know with the three consecutive bids it's all pretty much due to extenuating circumstances and is in some ways almost like a bizarre coincidence. My point was that it's indicative of a need for change.
Hopefully the Agenda 2020 plans will work and things will improve.
__________________
Recreational curler & resident armchair curler at Windy City Curling Club.
Co-host of the NerdCurl podcast & occasional blogger.
http://www.nerdcurl.com
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
08-02-15 03:09PM |
|
decade
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962 |
$50 million just to bid on the 2024 games doesn't sound like much of a reform process to me. Hope Toronto follows the lead of Boston and refuses to have anything to do with the IOC charlatans.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
08-02-15 03:22PM |
|
SargentIV
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL (originally from Richmond, VA)
Posts: 85 |
I agree that the cost of just bidding for the Olympics is obscene. There must be some way in which the IOC can place a limit on that number.
There is quite a bit about Agenda 2020 that makes me skeptical, but bidding reform, plus addressing the size of the Games, is critical.
__________________
If you want to win a race run the 100m. If you want an experience run the marathon. - Emil Zatopek
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is . |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|